Résumés
Abstract
The virtues and vices of argument are now an established part of argumentation theory. They have helped direct attention to hitherto neglected aspects of how we argue. However, it remains controversial whether a virtue theory can contribute to some of the central questions of argumentation theory. Notably, Harvey Siegel disputes whether what he calls ‘arguments in the abstract propositional sense’ can be evaluated meaningfully within a virtue theory. This paper explores the prospects for grounding an account of argument evaluation in arguers’ virtues and vices by examination of a corresponding debate in virtue ethics: Can an ethics of virtue guide our actions? It is thereby argued that an affirmative answer is possible: virtues suffice for argument evaluation.
Keywords:
- argument evaluation,
- argumentative norms,
- v-rules,
- virtue argumentation theory
Résumé
Les vertus et les vices de l’argumentation font désormais partie intégrante de la théorie de l’argumentation. Ils ont contribué à attirer l’attention sur des aspects jusqu’ici négligés de notre façon d’avancer des arguments. Cependant, la question de savoir si une théorie de la vertu peut contribuer à certaines des questions centrales de la théorie de l’argumentation reste controversée. Harvey Siegel se demande notamment si les « arguments au sens propositionnel abstrait » peuvent être évalués de manière significative dans le cadre d’une théorie de la vertu. Cet article explore les possibilités de fonder une analyse de l’évaluation des arguments sur les vertus et les vices des argumentateurs en examinant un débat correspondant dans l’éthique de la vertu : une éthique de la vertu peut-elle guider nos actions ? On avance ainsi qu’une réponse affirmative est possible : les vertus suffisent pour évaluer les arguments.
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2010. Virtue in argument. Argumentation 24(2): 165–179.
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2018. Commentary on Gascón, Virtuous arguers: Responsible and reliable. In Argumentation and inference: Proceed-ings of the 2nd European conference on argumentation, Fribourg 2017, eds. Steve Oswald and Didier Maillat, vol. 1, 123–128. Lon-don: College Publications.
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2019. Evidence, proofs, and derivations. ZDM 51(5): 825–834.
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2020. Eudaimonistic argumentation. In From argument schemes to argumentative relations in the wild: A variety of contributions to argumentation theory, eds. Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 97–106. Cham: Springer.
- Aberdein, Andrew. 2023. The fallacy fallacy: From the Owl of Minerva to the Lark of Arete. Argumentation 37(2): 269–280.
- Al Tamimi, Khameiel. 2017. A narrative account of argumentation. Ph.D. thesis. Toronto: York University.
- Bowell, Tracy and Justine Kingsbury. 2013. Virtue and argument: Taking character into account. Informal Logic 33(1): 22–32.
- Brogaard, Berit. 2014. Intellectual flourishing as the fundamental epistemic norm. In Epistemic norms: New essays on action, belief, and assertion, eds. John Turri and Clayton Littlejohn, 11–31. Ox-ford: Oxford University Press.
- Dutilh Novaes, Catarina. 2015. A dialogical, multi-agent account of the normativity of logic. Dialectica 69(4): 587–609.
- Dutilh Novaes, Catarina. 2021. The dialogical roots of deduction: His-torical, cognitive, and philosophical perspectives on reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Gascón, José Ángel. 2018. Virtuous arguers: Responsible and reliable. Argumentation 32(2): 155–173.
- Godden, David. 2016. On the priority of agent-based argumentative norms. Topoi 35(2): 345–357.
- Goddu, Geoff C. 2016. What (the hell) is virtue argumentation? In Argumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the first Europe-an conference on argumentation, Lisbon, 9–12 June 2015, eds. Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński, vol. 2, 439–448. London: College Publications.
- Hursthouse, Rosalind. 2006. Are virtues the proper starting point for morality? In Contemporary debates in moral theory, ed. James Drei-er, 99–112. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Kawall, Jason. 2009. In defense of the primacy of the virtues. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3(2): 1–21.
- MacFarlane, John. 2004. In what sense (if any) is logic normative for thought? URL: https://johnmacfarlane.net/normativity_of_logic.pdf.
- Marion, Mathieu. 2009. Why play logical games? In Games: Unifying logic, language, and philosophy, eds. Ondrej Majer, Ahti-Veikko Pi-etarinen, and Tero Tulenheimo, 3–26. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Mendonça, Bruno Ramos. 2023. Dialogue games and deductive infor-mation: A dialogical account of the concept of virtual information. Synthese 202(3): Article 73.
- O’Keefe, Daniel. 1977. Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13(3): 121–128.
- Paglieri, Fabio. 2015. Bogency and goodacies: On argument quality in virtue argumentation theory. Informal Logic 35(1): 65–87.
- Siegel, Harvey. 2023. Arguing with arguments: Argument quality, argumentative norms, and the strengths of the epistemic theory. In-formal Logic. 43(4): 465–526.
- Thorson, Juli K. 2016. Thick, thin, and becoming a virtuous arguer. Topoi 35(2): 359–366.
- Walton, Douglas N. and Erik C. W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
- Wenzel, Joseph W. 1980. Perspectives on argument. In Proceedings of the summer conference on argumentation, eds. Jack Rhodes and Sa-rah Newell, 112–133. Alta, UT: Speech Communication Associa-tion.